<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: About Those Lower Federal Administrative Costs&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stephenkruiser.com/2009/09/10/about-those-lower-federal-administrative-costs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stephenkruiser.com/2009/09/10/about-those-lower-federal-administrative-costs/</link>
	<description>Psychoblogging In Boxer-Briefs. Hold Me.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:16:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://stephenkruiser.com/2009/09/10/about-those-lower-federal-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-391</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stephenkruiser.com/2009/09/10/about-those-lower-federal-administrative-costs/#comment-391</guid>
		<description>Even if the numbers are wrong I can pull enough historical data from other notable examples of federal &quot;efficiency&quot; to make my case. There is no incentive to be efficient when all that&#039;s necessary to continue operating is legislative appropriation of taxpayer money. They idea that the public option will be paid for by &quot;premiums&quot; is perhaps the foulest pile of horseshit the president has contributed to this debate. It&#039;s going to be taxpayer funded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if the numbers are wrong I can pull enough historical data from other notable examples of federal &#8220;efficiency&#8221; to make my case. There is no incentive to be efficient when all that&#8217;s necessary to continue operating is legislative appropriation of taxpayer money. They idea that the public option will be paid for by &#8220;premiums&#8221; is perhaps the foulest pile of horseshit the president has contributed to this debate. It&#8217;s going to be taxpayer funded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://stephenkruiser.com/2009/09/10/about-those-lower-federal-administrative-costs/comment-page-1/#comment-390</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:36:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stephenkruiser.com/2009/09/10/about-those-lower-federal-administrative-costs/#comment-390</guid>
		<description>Check again, bro -- turns out the overhead was much lower than the AP figured.  Their numbers were wrong, or something.

4% overhead.  Still, if it costs ya 4% to administer a literal give-away of money, how much will it cost to administer the entire freakin&#039; healthcare system?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check again, bro &#8212; turns out the overhead was much lower than the AP figured.  Their numbers were wrong, or something.</p>
<p>4% overhead.  Still, if it costs ya 4% to administer a literal give-away of money, how much will it cost to administer the entire freakin&#8217; healthcare system?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

